Isn't being a Mets' fan a religion? There's no scientific proof they're even remotely close to being the Yankees yet people still believe. Now that's what I call nonsense! :hihi:
Well, you know we all aren't going to buy and read them, so why don't you make their points for them so we can discuss it?
if you are gonna classify something as "unoberservable", then i dont think you should also claim that religion makes observations about it. and again, i telling you that when you are doing something gay like pray, and you feel whatever it is you feel, the illusion that you are contacting the alien being or using telepathy to talk to the creator or whatever, i am telling you that is explainable. you are simply being stupid. explain to me how the existence of a creator, which would necessarily be magic and complex and incredible, would make sense relative to occams razor. arent you just adding made up factors to the equation when they are not required?
Well, science and religion are not languages, that is a specifically defined thing. Both science and religion do attempt to explain the world around them, but science sticks to objective facts, while religion embraces faiths and beliefs that are subjective assumptions. I challenge you to back this up. It makes no sense to me for there is no mutual exclusion. The remoteness of XYZ proves nothing about A, which could be equally remote. Ditto for mythology and superstition. I agree completely. I have no issue with people's faith, only with their attempts to confirm their faith with illogical deduction and pseudo-science.
what about the holy ghost? what is prayer if not telepathy with a ghost? how can you claim that every mainstream religion is anything other than exactly these things? of course.
Time.... But I am making the points in the discussion. At least my interpretation of the points. I don't take notes when I read for fun.
I agree and I feel exactly the same way about the faithful trying to convince themselves that their faith is scientifically valid. Creator, yes, but designer, no. Obviously the Universe was created and so there must be a creator. But we have no way of knowing if the creator is a diety or a natural phenomenon since we have incomplete evidence of either. Occams razor is a principle, not a natural law. But, the simplest solution is usually the best one. The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. So, I submit that accepting supernatural intervention and miracles is not a simple solution. There are many things that we have yet to discover about the Big Bang, but its simplicity is innate.
i dont agree that the universe was created. perhaps it always existed or transcends time or the need to be created or something. and if it was created and you say it needs a creator, i know what you mean, but it is misleading and i dont think most people will get the gist of what you are saying if you phrase it that way and you mean the creator was a phenomenon or whatever.
No, we know more about the universe than that. We know how old it is and that it was once a singularity, not an infinity. The universe we can observe had an origin. To speculate existence before that creation is as big a stretch as religion. We literally have no evidence at all for existence before that. I think most people understand that a creator need not be a diety. Certainly Bandit can understand.
